[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Tue May 31 19:06:22 UTC 2016

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:

> OK I have now been elected to the methods committee. The meeting did pass
> motions G and H, really without anything in the way of dissent.

Mark -- Congratulations and good luck!  High hopes now for future progress.

I think the idea was to retain "Block" in the method name. What are
> everyone's thoughts here?

Similar to others, I'd suggest adding 'Block' to the end of the method name
as the default handling, while also giving the bands that first rang these
methods the option to rename them if they wish.

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Iain Anderson <iain at 13to8.co.uk> wrote:

> When I sent up the February peals of Quark, I asked the RW not to use the
> current classifications, but instead use the original names that D J Pipe
> used when he first submitted them to Bellboard, and that's what happened.
> My thinking was twofold.  1) The names were likely to change in May, and
> given your comments, they may change again next year, 2) The seven (?)
> quark methods (Top, Bottom, Up, Down, Strange, Charm, plus Meson) fit
> together as a group and so having them named as different versions of
> Differential, Block, and Little Hybrid  is just nuts.  These
> classifications do nothing to help you learn or ring the methods, so what
> is the point of them.

In looking at the BB submission for the first quark peal (
http://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=399013), DJP reported this using
two changes to the current classification system:
- he classified methods that are false in the plain course in the way they
would be classified if they were true (Strange and Bottom)
- where methods are Little Hybrid, he dropped this classification (Up,
Down, Top, Charm).

Interestingly he doesn't seem to object to short course methods being
Differential, whereas the subgroup document* only used Differential where
working bells first come back to their starting places after differing
numbers of leads.

I think most of us support his treatment of the Block methods.  But
dropping Little Hybrid seems more questionable.  Under DJP's
classification, there's nothing to distinguish that, for example, Charm is
a hunt method whereas Strange is a principle.  Doesn't this distinction
help in learning / ringing these methods?


* For reference, the subgroup's proposed changes to method classification
- Eliminating the Block classification
- Eliminating the Slow Course classification
- No longer classifying as Differential methods that have a short course
(i.e. methods whose working bells all first return to their starting places
after the same number of plain leads, but this number of plain leads is
less than the number of working bells)
- Expanding the Alliance classification to include methods whose hunt bell
path(s) are symmetrical about a row or a change.  (At present symmetry is
only permitted about a change.)

At the same time, many on the subgroup felt that more than the above should
be done to simplify / rationalize the current classification system, but no
fuller proposal emerged.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160531/bd317443/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list